This category was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have this odd desire to make a category "straight people." Roscelese ( talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Articles about notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians." Roger Casement has now been excluded from the list of Irish LGBT people because his orientation "is debated by historians". So if even one writer disputes an historic figure thay have to be deleted?
Could this not be changed to someone whose gay sexual orientation "is accepted by a considerable majority of historians" or some such? Otherwise a crank or dead writers can close off the categorisation. 86.161.16.132 ( talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Obiwankenobi - I'd keep the category definition (inclusion criteria) in line with WP:COP#Clearly define the category. I see no reason to do otherwise. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think something in the vein of "apart from having come out, LGBT needs to be a significant part of their public life, otherwise: see lists below" would better be included. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Best to keep it in line with current guidelines, awaiting such times that any real answer might come to my remarks and questions above which, in the mean time, appear justified. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. "navigational purposes", what I said above appears to be covered by (policy-level) policy: Wikipedia is not a repository of internal links -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Would also like to draw your attention to the NPOV aspect: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep to a guideline-compliant category definition, awaiting further discussion that may or may not lead to deviance of the guideline, please. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the forumshopping at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category didn't yield any results. WP:CANVAS#Appropriate notification describes ways to attract more attention to this debate if deemed helpful.
I wouldn't go IAR on this. Please keep in mind that WP:COP was developed specifically with LGBT categories in mind. The example at Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category is atheism - it could as well have been LGBT, see the archives of WT:COP. When a WP:IAR approach is deemed fruitful nonetheless let's hear the cogent arguments how applying it to the following is helping the project:
Apart from the shortcuts I think I explained above why most of these guidelines and policies particularily apply to the category definition we're discussing here.
Note that, apart from that, there are still many unanswered questions in the #Category definition section above (e.g. Category:Kathoey people? third spirit? true hermaphrodites? to name only a few)
For the time being the category should clearly exclude any people that are "doubtful" as far as labeling them as LGBT is concerned.
Also, exclude people for whom LGBT is trivial in the sense explained at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT
Also, link to List of bisexual people from the category page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category has been archived without attracting any additional contributors.
"significant part of the public life or notability" would probably work better than "significant part of the public life and notability" (e.g. Gerard Mortier). Maybe add "and subcategories" to the category definition. I see no other problems with this version A rationale for divergence from existing policy and guidelines has not been shown. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe adding something in this vein to the category definition:
Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g. asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case.
might provide additional clarity? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
See prior discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. While the discussion extended to non-BLP cases I proposed to continue the discussion here.
Proposal: remove the "catdiffuse" template from the category page, following the recommendation of WP:EGRS#General #5. Reason: there are several biographies on people that are definitely LGBT, but harder to define as either L or G or B or T, so many of the categorizations exclusively limited to subcategories don't work. See examples at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I suppose something in this vein is what I'm thinking of:
When it's unclear whether a person exactly fits in one of the narrower categories (lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc.) use the subcategories in the branches that start with LGBT...:
Maybe rather something to be added to the WP:EGRS guideline than something that should be on the Category: LGBT people page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches. Simple. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe we don't need an additional rule:
For example for Harold Nicolson this would work. We know he had sex with men (& liked it). This had no discernable influence on what he wrote, nor on his public or political life. If I'm not erring Portrait of a Marriage, published years after his death, was the first public testimony about his sexuality. Its author/editor (his son) downplayed the non-straight characteristics of his parents. So after that he became notable for being a LGBT person. He was never notable for being a bi or LGBT politician from England, nor as a bi or LGBT writer from England. Those two categories are inappropriate, only the LGBT people category would work as an encyclopedic qualification for this person. Also he was not notable for being a LGBT or bi person from England.
Of course the simple "Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches" is true, but already included in WP:COP#N. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking about starting Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group:
Thoughts? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Bearcat Re. Harold Nicolson ("he doesn't have to have written on LGBT topics to warrant inclusion in this category; he merely has to be an LGBT person from England who wrote stuff. and "LGBT people" is a container which may only include subcats and never any individual articles at all"):
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
→ question moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.
Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis made a set of bold edits to the lede. Instead of reverting I tweaked the wording somewhat, but he undid that change. I suggest we discuss the changes I proposed here: 1) using Catmain in the normal way for the lists of people 2) removing the word 'significant' as that is not what BLPCAT says. Instead the word is 'relevant'
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 10:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Afaics (all) Radical Faeries consider themselves part of LGBT(Q). The same can not be said about non-binary people, as explained above. For genderqueer, I suppose people identifying as such would usually identify as Queer, so I see no need to mention them separately. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion related to this category at WT:CAT/EGRS#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. Please feel free to join the conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@ *Treker and Bearcat: See recent edit history of this category page. Since Category:LGBT has Category:Human sexuality as a parent, Category:LGBT people should have Category:People by sexuality as a parent, right? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This category was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have this odd desire to make a category "straight people." Roscelese ( talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Articles about notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians." Roger Casement has now been excluded from the list of Irish LGBT people because his orientation "is debated by historians". So if even one writer disputes an historic figure thay have to be deleted?
Could this not be changed to someone whose gay sexual orientation "is accepted by a considerable majority of historians" or some such? Otherwise a crank or dead writers can close off the categorisation. 86.161.16.132 ( talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Obiwankenobi - I'd keep the category definition (inclusion criteria) in line with WP:COP#Clearly define the category. I see no reason to do otherwise. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think something in the vein of "apart from having come out, LGBT needs to be a significant part of their public life, otherwise: see lists below" would better be included. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Best to keep it in line with current guidelines, awaiting such times that any real answer might come to my remarks and questions above which, in the mean time, appear justified. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. "navigational purposes", what I said above appears to be covered by (policy-level) policy: Wikipedia is not a repository of internal links -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Would also like to draw your attention to the NPOV aspect: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep to a guideline-compliant category definition, awaiting further discussion that may or may not lead to deviance of the guideline, please. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the forumshopping at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category didn't yield any results. WP:CANVAS#Appropriate notification describes ways to attract more attention to this debate if deemed helpful.
I wouldn't go IAR on this. Please keep in mind that WP:COP was developed specifically with LGBT categories in mind. The example at Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category is atheism - it could as well have been LGBT, see the archives of WT:COP. When a WP:IAR approach is deemed fruitful nonetheless let's hear the cogent arguments how applying it to the following is helping the project:
Apart from the shortcuts I think I explained above why most of these guidelines and policies particularily apply to the category definition we're discussing here.
Note that, apart from that, there are still many unanswered questions in the #Category definition section above (e.g. Category:Kathoey people? third spirit? true hermaphrodites? to name only a few)
For the time being the category should clearly exclude any people that are "doubtful" as far as labeling them as LGBT is concerned.
Also, exclude people for whom LGBT is trivial in the sense explained at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT
Also, link to List of bisexual people from the category page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category has been archived without attracting any additional contributors.
"significant part of the public life or notability" would probably work better than "significant part of the public life and notability" (e.g. Gerard Mortier). Maybe add "and subcategories" to the category definition. I see no other problems with this version A rationale for divergence from existing policy and guidelines has not been shown. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe adding something in this vein to the category definition:
Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g. asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case.
might provide additional clarity? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
See prior discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. While the discussion extended to non-BLP cases I proposed to continue the discussion here.
Proposal: remove the "catdiffuse" template from the category page, following the recommendation of WP:EGRS#General #5. Reason: there are several biographies on people that are definitely LGBT, but harder to define as either L or G or B or T, so many of the categorizations exclusively limited to subcategories don't work. See examples at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I suppose something in this vein is what I'm thinking of:
When it's unclear whether a person exactly fits in one of the narrower categories (lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc.) use the subcategories in the branches that start with LGBT...:
Maybe rather something to be added to the WP:EGRS guideline than something that should be on the Category: LGBT people page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches. Simple. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe we don't need an additional rule:
For example for Harold Nicolson this would work. We know he had sex with men (& liked it). This had no discernable influence on what he wrote, nor on his public or political life. If I'm not erring Portrait of a Marriage, published years after his death, was the first public testimony about his sexuality. Its author/editor (his son) downplayed the non-straight characteristics of his parents. So after that he became notable for being a LGBT person. He was never notable for being a bi or LGBT politician from England, nor as a bi or LGBT writer from England. Those two categories are inappropriate, only the LGBT people category would work as an encyclopedic qualification for this person. Also he was not notable for being a LGBT or bi person from England.
Of course the simple "Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches" is true, but already included in WP:COP#N. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking about starting Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group:
Thoughts? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Bearcat Re. Harold Nicolson ("he doesn't have to have written on LGBT topics to warrant inclusion in this category; he merely has to be an LGBT person from England who wrote stuff. and "LGBT people" is a container which may only include subcats and never any individual articles at all"):
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
→ question moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.
Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis made a set of bold edits to the lede. Instead of reverting I tweaked the wording somewhat, but he undid that change. I suggest we discuss the changes I proposed here: 1) using Catmain in the normal way for the lists of people 2) removing the word 'significant' as that is not what BLPCAT says. Instead the word is 'relevant'
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 10:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Afaics (all) Radical Faeries consider themselves part of LGBT(Q). The same can not be said about non-binary people, as explained above. For genderqueer, I suppose people identifying as such would usually identify as Queer, so I see no need to mention them separately. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion related to this category at WT:CAT/EGRS#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. Please feel free to join the conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@ *Treker and Bearcat: See recent edit history of this category page. Since Category:LGBT has Category:Human sexuality as a parent, Category:LGBT people should have Category:People by sexuality as a parent, right? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)